A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) was the co-owned real estate owned by the Plaintiff, I, J, K, and Defendants.

B. On November 28, 2018, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor (hereinafter “Successor”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the whole Plaintiff’s share of 25/55 among each of the instant real estate on November 21, 2018. On March 4, 2019, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on November 21, 2018, with respect to the entire shares of I 75/198 and the entire shares of J 5/198 on March 4, 2019, respectively on the grounds of sale and purchase, and on March 21, 2019, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 21, 2019 as to the total shares of Defendant E, F, G, and H 4/55 on March 21, 2019.

C. Each attachment registration in the Incheon Tax Office and the Namyang Tax Office for all shares of the network K 1/55 among the immovable property 1 and 3 has been completed, and each attachment registration for the shares of Defendant C among the immovable property 2 and for the shares of Defendant D has been completed.

On May 28, 2013, the network K died, and Defendant E, F, G, and H, their siblings, respectively, legally inherited one-fourth shares.

E. Current ownership shares of each real estate of this case are as listed in the attached Form of co-ownership shares.

F. There was no partition agreement between the succeeding intervenor and the Defendants on each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, there was no agreement between the succeeding intervenor and the Defendants as co-owners of each real estate of this case regarding the method of dividing each of the real estate of this case, and there was no circumstance to deem that there was a special agreement prohibiting the division between the succeeding intervenor and the Defendants. Thus, the succeeding intervenor against the Defendants based on his co-ownership share.